




























f 





Class J h* 2j 2<S ' 
Book _ / S’ f f ■ 












•a 


V ' 

« • 

l> 



^ i. 
J 


> - 





PROCEEDINGS 

OF' THB 

WASHINGTON ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 


VoL. 1 , pp. 189-220, 


December 29, 1899 


THE POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE 
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA , 


BY 

HENRY E. DAVIS 


WASHINGTON, D. C. 
Published by the Academy 
1899 




PROCEEDINQS 


OF THE 

WASHINGTON ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 


VOL. I, PP. 189-220. 


December 29, 1899. 


THE POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT 
OF COLUMBIA.' 

By Henry E. Davis. 

Contents. 


Unique character of the District of Columbia not accidental.189 

Maryland and Virginia [now Maryland only] sources of the District . . 191 
Development of the District along the lines of Maryland County Gov¬ 
ernment : the Levy Court system ..197 

Establishment and growth of the corporations of Georgetown and Wash¬ 
ington . . .. . 203 

Appearance and development of the Federal principle in the District , . 210 
Present form of government by Commissioners, embodying both Federal 

and local principles of government...214 

Unification of the District and its reflection in the plan and present char¬ 
acter of the City of Washington.. 218 


The District of Columbia is unique among the social com¬ 
munities of the world. The political center of a people which 
threw into the sea the tea which must bear a tax in the levying 
of which that people had no voice; the capital of a nation born 
of the declaration that taxation without representation sounds a 
note having no place in the harmony of freedom; the very ulti¬ 
mate product of the spirit which produced among the powers of 
the earth the one which proclaimed as its reason to be that all 
governments derive their just powers from the consent of the 
governed, it yet is bearing without murmur taxes the levying of 
which it cannot affect in the slightest degree, and has no effec- 

*Read before the Washington Academy of Sciences, April 29, 1899. 

(189) 


Proc. Wash. Acad. Sci., December, 1899. 







190 


DAVIS 


tive voice in the making of the laws by which it is governed. 
Nevertheless, the District of Columbia is the best governed com¬ 
munity of its day and generation. 

The reason of this presents the most interesting question pos¬ 
sible to the student of sociology, and makes that question the 
most difficult possible of apprehension by the superficial ob¬ 
server : a question not softened in its difficulties by the fact that 
the District has come to be what it is in the face of executive 
and judicial notice of its anomaly in the early days of its history. 
In his second annual message to Congress in 1818, President 
Monroe spoke as follows : 

The situation of this District, it is thought, requires the atten¬ 
tion of Congress. By the Constitution, the power of legislation 
is exclusively vested in the Congress of the United States. In 
the exercise of this power, in which the people have no partici¬ 
pation. Congress legislate in all cases directly on the local con¬ 
cerns of the District. As this is a departure, for a special 
purpose, from the general principles of our system, it may merit 
consideration whether an arrangement better adapted to the 
principles of our Government and to the particular interests of 
the people may not be devised which will neither infringe the 
Constitution nor affect the object which the provision in question 
was intended to secure. 

And in 1820, in the case of Loughborough v. Blake (5 
Wheaton, 317, 323-5), the Supreme Court of the United States 
which had been appealed to to declare, in effect, that the govern 
ment of the District of Columbia, in that it involved taxation 
without representation, was contrary to the spirit of our institu¬ 
tions, disposed of the matter in these words : 

If, then, the language of the Constitution be construed to 
comprehend the Territories and District of Columbia, as well as 
the States, that language confers on Congress the power of tax¬ 
ing the District and Territories as well as the States. If the 
general language of the Constitution should be confined to the 
States, still the i6th paragraph of the 8th section [of Article i], 
gives to Congress the power of exercising “ exclusive legislation 
in all cases whatsoever within this District.” 

On the extent of these terms, according to the common under¬ 
standing of mankind, there can be no difference of opinion ; 
but it is contended that they must be limited by that great prin¬ 
ciple which was asserted in our Revolution that representation 
is inseparable from taxation. 


DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 19! 

The difference between requiring a continent, with an im¬ 
mense population, to submit to be taxed by a Government 
having no common interest with it, separated from it by a vast 
ocean, restrained by no principle of appointment and associated 
with it by no common feelings and permitting the representatives 
of the American people, under the restrictions of our Constitu¬ 
tion, to tax a part of the society, which is either in a state of 
infancy advancing to manhood, looking forward to complete 
equality so soon as that state of manhood shall be attained, as is 
the case with the Territories; or which has voluntarily relin¬ 
quished the right of representation and has adopted the whole 
body of Congress for its legitimate government, as is the case 
with the District, is too obvious not to present itself to the minds of 
all. Although in theory it might be more congenial to the spirit of 
our institutions to admit a representative from the District, it may 
be doubted whether, in fact, its interests would be rendered 
thereby the more secure; and certainly the Constitution does 
not consider its want of a representative in Congress as ex¬ 
empting it from equal taxation. 

It is thus seen that the American people have not allowed their 
capital to become what it is in ignorance of what was happening ; 
and it is my pleasant task to review today the steps by which 
the result which you see about you came to be. 

As is well known, the establishment of the District as a polit- 
cal entity came about through events which, for want of a more 
philosophical expression, or rather, in the absence of reflection, 
we denominate fortuitous, but which, in their analysis and re¬ 
sults are entitled to be deemed truly Providential. Superficially 
speaking, and judged by the act at the time, by way of compos¬ 
ing certain controversies, which now interest us historically 
only, the territory contributed originally by Maryland and Vir¬ 
ginia was chosen as the site of the Federal Capital; and by way 
of avoiding the possibility of disturbances such as beset the 
national authorities when domiciled in Philadelphia, there was 
written into the 8th article of the Federal Constitution that 
supremely wise provision that “the Congress shall have power 
* * to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over 
such District (not exceeding ten miles square), as may, by ces¬ 
sion of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, be¬ 
come the Seat of the Government of the United States.” 




192 


DAVIS 


As is equally well known, this territory, originally ceded by 
Maryland and Virginia, in fact comprised ten miles square, or 
one hundred square miles in all. The legislative acts of Mary¬ 
land and Virginia providing for the cession were passed re¬ 
spectively December 23, 1788, and December 3, 1789, and the 
first Act of Congress on the subject was approved July 16, 1790^ 
an amendment thereof being approved March 3, 1791. The 
earlier Act of Congress, that of 1790, accepted for the perma¬ 
nent seat of the Government of the United States a district of 
territory not exceeding ten miles square, to be located on the 
river Potomac between the mouths of the Eastern Branch and 
Conogocheague, the same to be laid out by commissioners 
provided for by the Act; and it provided that by the first 
Monday in December, 1790, all offices attached to the seat of 
Government of the United States should be removed (from 
New York) to Philadelphia, and there remain until the first 
Monday in December, 1800, on which day the seat of Govern¬ 
ment of the United States should be transferred to the district 
and place aforesaid, and all offices attached to the said seat of 
Government, accordingly, be removed thereto by their respective 
holders, and after said day cease to be exercised elsewhere. 
The later act of Congress, that of 1791, amended the earlier 
act by providing that the whole of the contemplated district 
need not be located above the mouth of the Eastern Branch, but 
that a part of it might be located below the said limit and in¬ 
clude, with other territory, the city of Alexandria, Virginia. 
On January 24, 1791J President Washington proclaimed a ten¬ 
tative location of the District by metes and bounds, and after¬ 
wards, and on March 30, 1791, he proclaimed the metes and 
bounds as fixed in accordance with the act of Congress of that 
year. This latter proclamation located the District of Columbia 
as it existed until, in conformity with the act of Congress of 
July 9, 1846, the Virginia portion was retroceded to the State of 
Virginia, and from the date of this retrocession (which became 
an accomplished fact only upon the vote of the people of the 
county and town of Alexandria in manner prescribed by the act), 
the District of Columbia has consisted exclusively of the terri¬ 
tory, about sixty-four square miles in extent, originally ceded by 


S>-j- 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1 93 

the State of Maryland. In accordance with the provisions of 
the act of Congress of April 24, 1800, which authorized the 
President to direct the removal of the offices of the government 
to the District at any time that he might judge proper after the 
adjournment of the then present session of Congress, those offices 
were so removed, and the government of the people of the United 
States made its permanent home on the banks of the Potomac. 

I might, doubtless, in this presence have avoided going thus 
into detail, but I have had an object in so doing; for in order to 
indicate fully the matters entering into the political development 
of the District it is necessary for us to know at how many points 
the principles of political science have touched us in our birth 
and growth; for, odd as it may seem, the situation demands 
treatment from the top, instead of from the bottom, which latter 
is the natural and proper order. For as between local and inter¬ 
local law the former is naturally the first to be considered; and 
that form of inter-local law which we call international is the 
latest of all. Yet, as I am to deal with the political devel¬ 
opment of the District of Columbia as it now is, I must first 
get rid of so much of the District as formerly was, but now is 
not. This demands a word as to the political make-up of the 
original District, and leads to a consideration first of inter-local 
or international law as bearing upon our subject. 

It is a cardinal rule of international law that whenever there 
is a change of sovereignty only, the laws of the territory sub¬ 
jected to the new sovereignty continue until duly changed by 
that sovereignty. It is no exception to this rule to say that such 
laws may be changed by the treaty or other act occasioning the 
change of sovereignty, for this is the same as to say that the 
former laws are duly changed. In the original act of Maryland 
relating to the cession of its portion of the District of Columbia 
(the act of 1788), that State provided only that its representa¬ 
tives in Congress should cede “ to the Congress of the United 
States ” any district in the State not exceeding ten miles square 
which Congress might fix upon and accept for the Seat of Gov¬ 
ernment of the United States. But after the territory of Colum¬ 
bia had been definitely located, the General Assembly of Mary¬ 
land by act of December 19, 1791, in addition to making sundry 






194 


DAVIS 


provisions in relation to the territory in general and the city of 
Washington in particular, enacted specifically as follows : 

That all that part of the said territory, called Columbia, 
which lies within the limits of this state, shall be and the same 
is hereby acknowledged to be forever ceded and relinquished 
to the congress and government of the United States, in full 
and absolute right, and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil as 
of persons residing, or to reside, thereon, pursuant to the tenor 
and effect of the eighth section of the first article of the con¬ 
stitution of government of the United States: Provided, 
That nothing herein contained shall be so construed to vest in 
the United States any right of property in the soil, as to affect 
the rights of individuals therein, otherwise than the same shall 
or may be transferred by such individuals to the United States: 
And Provided Also, That the jurisdiction of the laws of this 
state, over the persons and property of individuals residing 
within the limits of the cession aforesaid, shall not cease or deter¬ 
mine until congress shall by law provide for the government 
thereof, under their jurisdiction, in manner provided by the 
article of the constitution before recited. 

Similarly, the State of Virginia, in making cession of its 
part of the original District enacted : 

That nothing herein contained shall be construed to vest in 
the United States any right of property in the soil, or to affect 
the rights of individuals therein, otherwise than the same shall 
or may be transferred by such individuals to the United States. 

And Provided Also, That the jurisdiction of the laws of this 
commonwealth over the persons and property of individuals re¬ 
siding within the limits of the cession aforesaid, shall not cease 
or determine until congress, having accepted the said cession, 
shall, by law, provide for the government thereof, under their 
jurisdiction, in manner provided by the article of the Constitu¬ 
tion before recited. 

As is thus apparent, the acts of Maryland and Virginia pro¬ 
vided for the continuance in the two portions of the newly- 
formed District of the laws of those States respectively until 
provision should be made by the Congress of the United States 
for the Government of the District. And when Congress came 
to deal with the matter, duly observing the rule of international 
law above noted, and not being ready to make new law in the 
premises, it enacted as follows on February 27, 1801 (2 Stats. 
103): 



DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 1 95 

That the laws of the State of Virginia, as they now exist, 
shall be and continue in force in that part of the District of Co¬ 
lumbia, which was ceded by the said State to the United States, 
and by them accepted for the permanent seat of government; 
and that the laws of the State of Maryland, as they now exist, 
shall be and continue in force in that part of the said District, 
which was ceded by that State to the United States, and by them 
accepted as aforesaid. 

This enactment of Congress left the two portions of the orig¬ 
inal District where they were at the time of its creation, and but 
for the act of retrocession of the Virginia portion my task would 
be much enlarged. As it is, however, we have now to do with 
only the Maryland portion, and to that I ask your attention. 

As you look at the map, you observe that where it washes the 
District of Columbia the Potomac river runs almost due south, 
though with some bearing towards the east, and that the upper¬ 
most and lowermost points of the original square of the District 
are due north and south from one another; and that the present 
territory of the District is bounded on its eastern sides by the 
Maryland county of Prince George and on its northern and 
western sides by the county of Montgomery. So also you will 
observe that below the county of Prince George in Maryland 
lie the counties o,f Charles and St. Mary, and that all three of 
these counties. Prince George, Charles and St. Mary are situated 
between the Potomac river on the west and the Patuxent river on 
the east. Originally the county of St. Mary was the only county 
of Maryland west of the Patuxent river, and in contemplation of 
law it comprised the whole of the State west of that stream. 
From April 23, 1696 (Act of 1695, ch. 13), however, the north¬ 
ern boundary of the county was fixed by a line drawn from 
Bud’s Creek on the Potomac to Indian Creek on the Patuxent, 
and the land above this line and as far up as Mattawoman and 
Swanson creeks and branches constituted the county of Charles, 
and all the land above Charles constituted the county of Prince 
George, so named because the 23d day of April is St. George’s 
day. The present District of Columbia, was, accordingly, at 
first wholly within this county. 

In 1748 (Act of 1748, ch. 14), it was provided that as of the 


196 


DAVIS 


date December loth of that year there should be erected out of 
Prince George county a new county named in honor of Prince 
Frederick, son of George II, and “ beginning at the lower side 
of the mouth of Rock creek and thence by a straight line join¬ 
ing to the east side of Seth Hyatt’s plantation to the Patuxent 
river.” This new county embraced part of the present county 
and original City of Washington and all that part of the present 
City of Washington formerly known in law, and still colloquially 
known as Georgetown; the remainder of the present District 
continuing in Prince George county. 

On September 6, 1776, the Revolutionar}^, or Provincial, Con¬ 
vention of Maryland, erected out of Frederick county two other 
counties named respectively after Generals Washington and 
Montgomery, the boundaries of the latter beginning at the east 
side of Rock Creek and running thence with the Potomac River 
to the mouth of the Monocacy, thence to Par spring and thence 
with the line of the original Frederick county to the place of 
beginning. This, it is seen, threw Georgetown and part of the 
remainder of the present District into the new county of Mont¬ 
gomery, and thus, at the time of the creation of the District of 
Columbia the Maryland portion, that is to say all of the present 
District, comprised parts of Prince George and Montgomery 
counties. 

The interest of this seemingly unnecessary detail lies in the 
fact that the beginnings of the local government of the Dis¬ 
trict were in these respective counties, and the political devel¬ 
opment of the District starts with the institutions in existence 
therein. I regret that time forbids my giving you a complete 
picture of a Maryland county government in those early days, 
but I must forego the temptation to do so. I must, however, 
ask attention to some features of that government, for the reason 
that those features survived in the District until within a very 
few years, as we shall presently see. 

Maryland, as we all know, was settled in March, 1634, upon 
the landing of the first emigrants at St. Mary. Those emi¬ 
grants brought with them the principles of law and government 
of the mother country and the charter of Maryland establish- 


DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA I97 

ing a palatinate under the all but royal rule of Lord Baltimore. 
Again I must resist a temptation : the temptation, namely, to 
give you a glimpse of the system of manors and hundreds pre¬ 
vailing throughout the Province, and to tell you the very inter¬ 
esting story of the early assemblies of the freemen, their make¬ 
up, proceedings and the rest. It must suffice, however, that I 
point out to you the fact that, in the .absence of the Lord Pro¬ 
prietary of the Province, the general executive powers were 
vested in the Governor or Lieutenant General, while the gen¬ 
eral legislative powders (subject to the approval of the Lord 
Proprietary and liable to the disapproval of the crown), were 
vested in the general assembly of the freemen of the Province; 
and quite from the beginning there was a Lord Chief Justice of 
the Province. The affairs of the Province were managed by 
these various officials and the Assembly, but as early as the 
Session of 1638-9 a system of Government of the Counties was 
inaugurated, and in this system began the local government of 
the District of Columbia. 

For in March of that year, more than two hundred and sixty 
years ago, there was introduced into the Assembly the bill out 
of which grew the Maryland County Court, the predecessor in 
certain of its features of the Levy Court so familiar to those of 
of us of the District who are not sensitive about our ages : for 
the Levy Court of the County of Washington and District of 
Columbia was a living body until the first day of June, 1871, 
less than twenty-eight years ago. 

The bill so introduced into the Assembly so many years ago, 
and which ultimately became a law, is a perfect illustration of 
the way in which all Anglo-Saxon institutions have grown up. 
You will recall that in the beginning of the English judicial sys¬ 
tem the King, as the fountain of justice, was the ultimate 
judge, and that he first appointed justiciars or justices to aid 
him in his judicial work, and then, in the person of that very 
greatest of all English monarchs, Henry II, sent certain per¬ 
sons, constituted justices for that purpose, into the several shires 
or counties of England to hold court and administer justice for 
him. Similarly, our legal ancestors of Maryland, sitting in 
that early assembly at St. Mary in 1638-9, provided that all 


198 


DAVIS 


causes of a general nature should be heard in the several parts 
of the state in a county court by the Chief Justice of the Province 
for the time being, “or” as the bill read, “by and before such 
other commissioner or commissioners as the Lord Proprietary 
of this Province or the Lieutenant General shall authorize to 
hear and determine the same.” The bill further provided for a 
register to attend each session of the County Court and that 
“the said Chief Justice or Commissioners for the time being and 
the said register shall be a court of record and shall be called 
the County Court, and the said court shall or may have, use, 
exercise and enjoy all or any the same or the like powers, 
privileges, authorities and jurisdictions within this Province (in 
the causes aforesaid), as one of the King’s courts of common 
law in England useth or may use and exercise within the realm 
of England (except where it is otherwise provided by any law 
of this Province).” To this Court, or, more accurately, to 
the Commissioners provided by the enactment, was committed 
the management of local affairs generally, including the making 
of levies for the public charges and expenses. 

Not to go into unnecessary detail, it may be said generally 
that from this time forth it was the practice for the Commission¬ 
ers of the several counties, or of the several county courts, as 
they were indifferently styled in subsequent enactments, to make 
all necessary levies for the public charges and expenses and to 
administer the various county affairs. In some instances the 
levies were made upon the counties and in others upon the sev¬ 
eral hundreds within the counties, and in every instance the levy 
was upon the taxable freemen or upon such freemen and the 
“visible estates in the Province.” 

In later years the duties of the County Commissioners in respect 
of the levies were performed by the justices of the peace, who 
had also been provided for at the same time as the county court; 
and by a gradual process, but one in entire harmony with the 
manner of growth of all institutions under our English system, 
the justices of the peace wholly supplanted the Commissioners 
in the respect under consideration ; until finally the meeting of 
the justices of the peace for the purpose indicated came to be 
designated as Levy Courts, and in 1794 (Act of 1794, ch. 53), 


DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 


199 


we find the Assembly speaking of the Levy Courts as definitely 
established bodies, and providing that such courts may impose 
assessments for repairs of their court-houses and the county 
prisons, and for the erection and repair of bridges ; and, further, 
that the justices of the peace in the respective counties, or any 
five of them, shall meet annually between the first of March and 
the first of October “to adjust the ordinary and necessary ex¬ 
penses of their several countiesj” and to levy the necessary and 
proper assessments in the premises; and finally, so far as we 
have to do with Maryland in the matter, in 1798 (Act of 1798, 
ch. 34), it was enacted that seven justices of the peace of those 
annually commissioned should be commissioned by the Governor 
and Council as justices of the Levy Court in each county, and 
designated in their commissions as ‘Justices of the Levy Court.’ 

Accordingly, when on February 27, 1801, Congress assumed 
jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, its government was in 
the hands of such a Levy Court, or, speaking accurately, of two 
of such Courts, one each for the counties of Prince George 
and Montgomery, except as to that portion of the District, or 
Montgomery County as it then was, which was occupied by the 
town of Georgetown, for which, as we shall presently see, a 
separate municipal government had already been provided. 

Again following the course of things under the English sys¬ 
tem, when Congress assumed jurisdiction over the present Dis¬ 
trict of Columbia, which was created a county by the name of 
Washington (as the Virginia portion of the original District was 
created a county by the name of Alexandria), provision was 
made for the appointment by the President of officers familiar to 
the people of the territory, including the constituents of a Levy 
Court, namely, justices of the peace, and by act of March 3, 
1801 (2 Stats. 115), it was specifically enacted: 

That the magistrates, to be appointed for the said district, 
shall be and they are hereby constituted a board of commission¬ 
ers within their respective counties, and shall possess and exer¬ 
cise the same powers, perform the same duties, receive the same 
fees and emoluments, as the levy courts or commissioners of 
county for the state of Maryland, possess, perform and receive; 
and the clerks and collectors, to be by them appointed, shall be 
subject to the same laws, perform the same duties, possess the 


200 


DAVIS 


same powers, and receive the same fees and emoluments as the 
clerks and collectors of the county tax of the state of Maryland 
are entitled to receive. 

In accordance with this enactment the Levy Court of the 
County of Washington was organized and carried on its opera¬ 
tions in accordance with the Maryland system. On July i, 
1812 (2 Stats. 771), Congress conferred certain specific pow¬ 
ers upon the body, or “ the board of commissioners or levy 
court for the county of Washington,” as the language of the act 
is, and provided that thereafter the board of court should be 
composed of seven members to be designated annually by the 
President from among the existing magistrates of the county, 
two to be from the county east of Rock creek and outside of 
the city of Washington, two from the county west of Rock 
creek and outside of the city of Georgetown, and three from 
the city of Georgetown. “Taxation without representation” 
still pursued the city of Washington; for while it had no repre¬ 
sentative in the Levy Court, it was required by the same act to 
bear one-half of all the general county expenses and charges 
other than those for roads and bridges. But in 1848 (9 Stats. 
223, 230), this was righted by the provision by Congress for 
the appointment annually of four additional members of the 
court from the city of Washington, so that thereafter the court 
should consist of eleven members. 

The Act of August ii, 1856 (ii Stats. 33), authorized the 
Court to appoint School Commissioners, and provided fully for 
a system of schools in the county, prescribing the powers and 
duties of the Levy Court in relation thereto. By Act of May 3, 
1862 (12 Stats. 383), the Court was given further specific 
powers, and the requirement that its members should be ap¬ 
pointed from among the justices of the peace was repealed. 
And by Act of May 3, 1863 (12 Stats. 799), entitled “ An Act 
to define the Powers and Duties of the Levy Court of the 
County of Washington, District of Columbia, in regard to 
Roads, and for other Purposes,” which was in effect a code in 
relation to the county. Congress made full provision for the 
Court, defining accurately its jurisdiction and duties and reduc¬ 
ing the number of its members to nine, who were provided to be 


DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 


201 


appointed by the President and confirmed by Senate, and to 
hold office for three years; of the members to be first appointed 
one-third to be appointed for one year, one-third for two years 
and one-third for three years, so that the body might be kept 
continuous and permanent. 

There are several subsequent acts conferring certain powers 
on the Court and regulating its action in given cases, but the 
character and importance of the Court were in no wise affected 
thereby, and until its abolition in 1871, it remained substantially 
as fixed by the Act of 1863. 

The character of this body cannot be better stated than in the 
language of Mr. Justice Miller of the Supreme Court of the 
United States, speaking for that Court in the case of Levy 
Court V. Coroner (2 Wall. 501, 507-8) as follows : 

The Levy Court is the body charged with the administration 
of the ministerial and financial duties of Washington County. 
It is charged with the duty of laying out and repairing roads, 
building bridges, and keeping them in good order, providing 
poor-houses, and the general care of the poor; and with 
laying and collecting the taxes which are necessary to en¬ 
able it to discharge these and other duties, and to pay the other 
expenses of the county. It has the capacity to make contracts 
in reference to any of these matters, and to raise money to meet 
these contracts. It has perpetual succession. Its functions are 
those which, in the several States, are performed by “ county 
commissioners,” “ overseers of the poor,” “ county supervisors,” 
and similar bodies with other designations. Nearly all the func¬ 
tions of these various bodies, or of any of them, reside in the 
Levy Court of Washington. It is for all financial and minis¬ 
terial purposes the County of Washington. 

I have said that at the time Congress assumed jurisdiction 
over the District, and the Levy Court went into operation for 
the County of Washington as a separate territory, there had 
already been created a separate municipal government for 
Georgetown. The history of this government is not less inter¬ 
esting than that of the Levy Court. 

Certain of the inhabitants of Frederick County having set 
forth in a petition to the Assembly of Maryland that there was 
a convenient place for a town on the Potomac, above the mouth 
of Rock Creek, and praying that sixty acres of land might there 


202 


DAVIS 


be laid out and erected into a town, the assembly by Act of June 
8, 1751 (ch. 21), appointed seven commissioners to buy the 
necessary land and lay out the same in eighty lots, to constitute 
a town by the name of Georgetown. The act provided no gov¬ 
ernment for the new town, which remained subject to the Levy 
Court of the County of Frederick, except that the Commis¬ 
sioners were empowered to remove nuisances from the streets 
and alleys (Sec. 13), and except also as appears in the follow¬ 
ing interesting breath from the past (Sec. 12) : 

And whereas it may be advantageous to the said town to have 
fairs kept therein, and may prove an encouragement to the back 
inhabitants, and others, to bring commodities there to sell and 
vend; Be it Enacted^ That it shall and may be lawful for the 
Commissioners of the said town, to appoint two fairs to be held 
therein annually, the one fair to begin on the second Thursday 
in April, and the other on the first Thursday in October, annu¬ 
ally ; which said fairs shall be held each for the space of three 
days; and, that during the continuance of such fair or fairs, all 
persons within the bounds of the said town shall be privileged 
and free from arrests, except for felony, and breach of the 
peace ; and all persons coming to such fair or fairs, or returning 
therefrom, shall have the like privilege of one day before the 
fair, and one day on their return therefrom; And the Commis¬ 
sioners for the said town, are hereby empowered to make such 
rules and orders for the holding of the said fairs, as may tend 
to prevent all disorders and inconveniences that may happen in 
the said town, and such as may tend to the improvement and 
regulating of the said town in general: so as such rules, except 
in fair-time, affect none but livers in the said town, or such per¬ 
son or persons as shall have a lot or freehold therein; any law, 
statute, usage, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding ; Pro¬ 
vided always. That such rules and orders be not inconsistent 
with the laws of this province, nor the statutes or customs of 
Great Britain. 

And as showing that the feudal system was not yet fully dead, 
witness the following further provision of this Act (Sec. 15): 

That all and every person and persons taking up and possess¬ 
ing the lots aforesaid, or any of them, shall be, and are hereby, 
obliged to pay unto the right honorable the lord proprietary, his 
heirs or successors, the yearly rent of one penny sterling money 
for each respective lot by them so taken up and possessed, to be 
paid in the same manner as his land rents in this province now 
are, or hereafter shall be paid. 


DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 


203 


By Act of December 26, 1783 (Chap. 27), provision was made 
for Beall’s Addition to the town of sixty-one acres of the tract 
known as the Rock of Dumbarton, and by Act of January 22, 
1785 (Acts of 1784, Ch. 45), similar provision was made for 
Peter, Deakins, Beatty and Threlkeld’s Addition of about 
twenty and one-half acres of the several tracts bearing the 
attractive names of Frogland, Discovery, Conjuror’s Disap¬ 
pointment and Resurvey on Salop. 

At last, on Christmas Day 1789 (ch. 23), the Assembly incor¬ 
porated the town, which by this time had fallen within Mont¬ 
gomery County. The act of incorporation is interesting in many 
particulars. Thus, in part imitation of the Charter of London, 
the town as a body corporate was made to consist of a mayor, 
recorder, six aldermen and ten common council-men, and was 
given the corporate name of “The Mayor, Recorder, Aider- 
men and Common Counciland the act appointed by name the 
first Mayor, Recorder and Aldermen, leaving the common 
council-men to be elected by a viva voce vote of the qualified 
freemen, and providing for the annual election of a mayor 
from among the aldermen and for filling vacancies in the sev¬ 
eral offices. The Recorder and all the aldermen and common 
council-men were to hold office during good behavior; the Re¬ 
corder was always to be “a person learned in the law,” and 
vacancies in the board of aldermen were to be filled by election 
from among the common council-men. The Mayor, Recorder, 
and Aldermen were constituted justices of the peace and given 
power to elect a sheriff and appoint constables and other neces¬ 
sary officers for the town, and were also required to hold a 
court to be called the Mayor’s Court, the jurisdiction of which 
was specifically defined; and other municipal powers were 
granted to the corporation. By subsequent legislation {e. g. 
1797, ch. 56, 1799, ch. 85), the tenure of the officers was 
limited in time, the limitation of the choice of Mayor to be from 
among the Aldermen was removed, additional powers were 
given the corporation, and the limits of the town were variously 
enlarged, altered and more clearly defined. 

By its first act on the subject, that of March 3, 1805 (2 Stats. 
332), Congress amended the charter of Georgetown by provid- 


204 


DAVIS 


ing that after the second Monday in March of that year the 
corporation of the town should be divided into two branches, the 
first to be composed of five members and a recorder, and called 
‘ The Board of Aldermen,’ and the second to be composed 
of eleven members and called ‘ The Board of Common Coun- 
cilmen,’ all to be elected. The first election was provided to be 
by the then existing members of the corporation, who should 
choose five of their number to compose the Board of Aldermen, 
the remainder to be the Board of Common Councilmen and all 
to remain in office until the fourth Monday of February follow¬ 
ing. The then Recorder was to be president of the Board of 
Aldermen until the same day, and the then Mayor to remain in 
office until the first Monday of January following. For the 
future. Aldermen and Common Councilmen were to be elected 
by the people, the former for two years and the latter for one 
year; while the two branches by joint ballot were annually to 
elect a Mayor and Recorder, the latter still to be a “ person 
learned in the law.” The act defined the powers and territorial 
jurisdiction of the corporation, provided for the filling of va¬ 
cancies in the several offices, and contained other useful provis¬ 
ions. Finally, by Act of May 31, 1830 (4 Stats. 426), Con¬ 
gress provided for the election of the Mayor by the people on 
the same day as the councilmen were chosen, and fixed the ten¬ 
ure of his office at two years ; and provided for filling a vacancy 
in the office by the two branches until the next regular election. 
And, in the meanwhile, by the Act of May 20, 1826 (4 Stats. 
183), Congress had deprived the Levy Court of the County of 
Washington of the power to assess any tax in Georgetown, so 
that the latter city from this time on stood as a quite fully 
equipped and independent Municipal Corporation, retaining its 
powers until 1871, and its separate name until the passage of 
the Act of 1895, hereafter to be noticed. 

burning now to the City of Washington, it has already been 
pointed out that Congress effectively assumed jurisdiction over 
the District of Columbia by the Act of February 27, 1801 
(2 Stats. 103). At that time there was, of course, no such thing 
as a corporation of the City of Washington; nor was there un- 


DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 


205 


til after the passage of the Act of Congress of May 3, 1802 
(2 Stats. 195). By the Act for establishing the temporary and 
permanent seat of government of the United States, approved 
July 16, 1790 (i Stats. 130), a board of three Commissioners 
was provided for, which board was charged with the duty of 
surveying, defining and limiting the district to be accepted for 
the permanent seat of government, and providing suitable gov¬ 
ernment buildings. These officials were called in the later Act 
of April 24, 1800 (2 Stats. 55), “the Commissioners of the 
City,” and were recognized as being in effect entrusted with the 
affairs of the city in general. By Act of Congress of May i, 
1802 (2 Stats. 175), this board of commissioners was abolished 
and the affairs of the City of Washington, which had heretofore 
been under the care and superintendence of the said commis¬ 
sioners, were put under the direction of a superintendent, to be ap¬ 
pointed by and to be under the control of the President of the 
United States ; which superintendent was vested with the powers 
and charged with the duties formerly vested with or required to 
be performed by the said commissioners by virtue of any Act of 
Maryland or of Congress, or the deeds of trust from the original 
proprietors of the lots in the City, or in any other manner 
whatsoever. 

[By act of April 29, 1806 (3 Stats.324), the office of this Super¬ 
intendent was abolished and its powers and duties, as also the 
duties of the earlier board of three commissioners, were devolved 
upon one commissioner, thereafter known as the commissioner 
of public buildings; and by act of March 2, 1867 (14 Stats. 
466), the office of this commissioner was in turn abolished and 
those powers and duties devolved upon the Chief of Engineers 
of the Army.^ 

By the Act of May 3, 1802 (2 Stats. 195), Congress provided 
that the inhabitants of the City of Washington should be a cor¬ 
poration “by the name of a Mayor and Council of the City of 

> A complete and accurate account of the creation of the City of Washington 
as the Federal City, including a full exposition of the manner in which and the 
terms on which the lands for the purpose were conveyed to the original com¬ 
missioners, may be found in the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of Morris v. United States (commonly called the ‘Potomac 
Flats Case’), decided May i, 1899. (174 U. S. 196). 

Proc. Wash. Acad. Sci., December, 1899. 


2o6 


DAVIS 


Washington,” and that the city should be divided into three 
divisions or wards, as then divided by the Levy Court, with 
power in the council to increase the number of wards in its 
wisdom. The council was provided to consist of twelve mem¬ 
bers, elected annually by the qualified voters, and when elected 
the twelve were to choose from their number by joint ballot five 
to constitute the second chamber, the remaining seven to con¬ 
stitute the first. The Mayor was provided to be appointed 
annually by the President of the United States, and the cor¬ 
poration was given usual municipal powers. A somewhat 
unique provision was “ that the by-laws or ordinances of the 
said corporation shall be in no wise obligatory upon the persons 
of non-residents of the said city, unless in cases of intentional 
violations of bye-laws or ordinances previously promulgated.” 
By its terms, and in imitation of the very wise practice of the 
State of Maryland at the time, the act was limited in force to 
two years and to the end of the next session of Congress there¬ 
after. By the supplementary act of February 24, 1804 (2 Stats. 
254), the original act was continued in force for fifteen years 
from the end of the next session of Congress ; certain additional 
powers were given the corporation; the Levy Court was de¬ 
prived of the power to impose any tax upon the inhabitants of 
the city, and the constitution of the Councils was changed by 
provision that future councils should consist of two chambers of 
nine members each, to be chosen by distinct ballots, and that any 
vacancy should be filled by the chamber in which it should 
happen by an election by ballot from the three persons next 
highest on the list to those elected at the preceding election. 

I The Charter of the City was radically changed by the Act of 
May 4, 1812 (2 Stats. 721). By the terms of this act, after the 
first Monday of June of that year the corporation was composed 
of a Mayor, a board of aldermen and a board of common coun¬ 
cil, and its corporate name was “The Mayor, Aldermen and 
Common Council of the City of Washington.” There were 
eight aldermen, two from each ward, and twelve common coun- 
cilmen, three from each ward, and all were elected by ballot by 
the qualified voters, the former for two years and the latter for 
one year. The Mayor was elected annually by ballot by the 


DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 


207 


two chambers in joint meeting, and in case of three ballots with¬ 
out an election he was to be chosen by lot. Quite full munici¬ 
pal powers were given the corporation, including the power to 
pass all laws necessary for carrying into execution the powers 
specifically conferred upon and vested in the corporation, 
whether by the act itself or any former one. ■ Among the pow¬ 
ers specifically conferred by the act was that “to authorize the 
drawing of lotteries for effecting any important improvement in 
the city, which the ordinary funds or revenues thereof will not 
accomplish: Provided^ that the amount to be raised in each 
year shall not exceed the sum of ten thousand dollars : and pro¬ 
vided also, that the object for which the money is intended to be 
raised shall be first submitted to the President of the United 
States and shall be approved by him.” This act was amended 
February 20, 1819 (3 Stats. 485), providing for tax-sales, and 
by act of February 28, 1820 (3 Stats. 543), it was extended to 
March 3, 1821, unless sooner repealed. 

The act of May 15, 1820 (3 Stats. 583), was still more thor¬ 
ough. It repealed all former enactments so far as inconsistent 
with its provisions; continued the corporation under its later 
name; granted many new powers; made elaborate provisions 
respecting tax-sales; prohibited any tax upon property in the 
city by the Levy Court, and limited the contributions by the 
corporation to the expenditures of that court; and made specific 
provision for the division of the city into wards. For the first 
time the Mayor was to be elected by the people, and he was to 
be chosen every second year; and, as before, there were to be 
two aldermen chosen from each ward for two years, and three 
common council-men from each ward for one year. The act 
was limited in duration to twenty years or until Congress should 
by law determine otherwise. 

An interesting and important provision of this act, foreshad¬ 
owing the existing division of expenditures between the United 
States and the District, is section 15, as follows: 

That the commissioner of the public buildings, or other per¬ 
son appointed to superintend the United States disbursements 
in the city of Washington, shall reimburse to the said corpora¬ 
tion a just proportion of any expense which may hereafter be 
incurred, in laying open, paving or otherwise improving, any 


2o8 


DAVIS 


of the streets or avenues in front of, or adjoining to, or which 
may pass through, or between, any of the public squares or 
reservations, which proportion shall be determined by a com¬ 
parison of the length of the front, or fronts, of the said squares 
or reservations, of the United States, on any such street or 
avenue, with the whole extent of the two sides thereof; and he 
shall cause the curb stones to be set, and foot ways to be paved, 
on the side or sides of any such street or avenue, whenever the 
said corporation shall, by law, direct such improvements to be 
made by the proprietors of the lots on the opposite side of any 
such street or avenue, or adjacent to any such square or reser¬ 
vation ; and he shall cause the foot ways to be paved, and the 
curb stones to be set, in front of any lot or lots belonging to the 
United States, when the like improvements shall be ordered by 
the corporation in front of the lots adjoining, or squares adjacent 
thereto; and he shall defray the expenses directed by this sec¬ 
tion, out of any moneys arising from the sale of lots in the city 
of Washington, belonging to the United States, and from no 
other fund. 

A supplementary act was passed May 26, 1824 (4 Stats. 
75), providing more fully for tax sales, and providing also (by 
section 14), for the removal of nuisances from lots belonging to 
the United States, at the expense of the United States, to be de¬ 
frayed out of moneys in the hands of the City Commissioner 
from the sale of public property in the city. 

The last general act of Congress in relation to the corporation 
of Washington is that of May 17, 1848 (9 Stats. 223), entitled 
‘ An act to continue, alter and amend the Charter of the City 
of Washington.’ This act provides for continuing in force for 
the term of twenty years from its date, or until Congress should 
by law determine otherwise, the acts of May 15, 1820, and May 
26, 1824, “and the act or acts supplemental or additional to 
said acts which were in force on the fourteenth day of May, 
eighteen hundred and forty, or which may, at the passing of 
this act, be in force.” The act deals largely with the levy and 
collection of taxes; provides for the election of a board of asses¬ 
sors, a register, a collector and a surveyor; and prescribes more 
fully the qualifications of electors and the jurisdiction, duties ^ 
and tenure of office of justices of the peace. Sectioris 12 and ^ 
13 of the act are of especial interest as dealing further with the 
duty and liability of the general government in respect of open- 


DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 


209 


ing streets and repairing pavements and highways. In view of 
the popular error that Congress is doing a generous thing by 
the District in sharing expenses with it, these two sections 
should be read in full. .They are as follows : 

That the commissioner of public buildings, or other officer 
having charge and authority over the lands and property of the 
United States lying within the city of Washington, shall from 
time to time cause to be opened and improved such avenues and 
streets, or parts or portions thereof, as the President of the 
United States, upon application of the corporation of the said 
city, shall deem necessary for the public convenience, and di¬ 
rect to be done ; and he shall defray the expenses thereof out of 
any money arising, or which shall have arisen, from the sale of 
lots in the city of Washington, belonging, or which may have 
belonged to the United States, and from no other fund. And it 
shall be the duty of the said commissioner, or other United 
States officer, as aforesaid, upon the application of the mayor, 
to repair and keep in repair the pavements, water-gutters, water¬ 
ways and flag foot-ways which have been made or shall be 
made opposite or along the public squares, reservations, or other 
property belonging to the United States; as also, on like ap¬ 
plication, to repair and keep in repair such streets and avenues, 
or parts thereof, as may have been, or shall hereafter be, 
opened and improved by the United States; the expense of all 
such repairs to be paid out of the fund before mentioned. 

That the commissioner of public buildings be, and he is hereby 
required to perform the duties required of the city commissioner 
by the fourteenth section of the act of the twenty-sixth of May, 
eighteen hundred and twenty-four, supplementary to the act of 
the fifteenth of May, eighteen hundred and twenty, incorporat¬ 
ing the inhabitants of the city of Washington. And it shall be 
the duty of the commissioner of public buildings, within ninety 
days after the sale of any lots or squares belonging to the United 
States in the city of Washington, to report the fact to the cor¬ 
poration of Washington, giving the date of sale, the number of 
the lot and square, the name of the purchaser or purchasers, and 
the said lots or squares shall be liable to taxation by the said 
corporation from the date of such sale. And no open space, 
public reservation, or other public ground in the said city, shall 
be occupied by any private person, or for any private purposes 
whatever. 

With a few alterations, all appertaining to detail and none af¬ 
fecting the general scheme of the government, the charter of the 


210 


DAVIS 


City of Washington remained to the end substantially as the act 
of 1848 left it. \There were thus for some years side by side in 
the District three separate municipal governments, the Corpor¬ 
ation of Washington, the Corporation of Georgetown and the 
Levy Court. Each of these governments had and exercised 
the power of making ordinances and laws, and there accordingly 
existed at the same time one set of such ordinances or laws for 
Washington, another set for Georgetown and a third set for the 
county. Perhaps no greater anomaly than this can be presented 
for a territory of sixty-four square miles, especially when it is 
considered that this territory is the seat of Time’s latest and best 
offspring in the way of government; and I am constrained to 
wonder what the Puritan forebears of sturdy New England would 
have thought could they have come to life so lately as within 
the past quarter of a century to find that the same act committed 
on the same Sunday would have met with one punishment in 
Georgetown, another in the county and none at all in Washing¬ 
ton. Yet this very fact, for fact it is, is the highest possible 
testimonial to the conservatism which characterizes the origin 
and growth of law and institutions in our English system : the 
conservatism which has made us and our kin beyond the sea 
the foremost in the universal brotherhood now happily becoming 
so generally recognized. 

In the growth and administration of these three municipalities, 
helped along by the oversight of the Federal power, there of 
course came into being as occasion required the needful detail 
agencies of government: courts greater and smaller, judicial 
and fiscal officers, surveyors, school officials, boards of health, 
constabularies, and the like. And although our institutions 
were thus growing and being added to in strict conformity to 
the principles of the distinction between Federal and local govern¬ 
ment which underlies the whole American system, there was at 
the same time coming more and more into play the other seem¬ 
ingly inevitable principle, so far as result is concerned, that the 
national must and will to a great extent override the local, and 
the general must and will supplant the particular. 

This was first manifested in the establishment of courts and 
judicial officers and general laws, of jurisdiction and authority 


DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 


211 


extending throughout the District; but, as is so often the case, 
it was reserved for the stress of war to occasion the first compre¬ 
hensive step in the way of unity, at first seeming radical but in 
the end coming to be recognized as so natural as to make the 
wonder to be that it was so long delayed. This first step is to 
be found in the Act of Congress of August 6, i86i (12 Stats. 
320), forming the cities of Washington and Georgetown and the 
county outside of the limits of those cities, in a word the entire 
District, into “The Metropolitan Police District of the District 
of Columbia.” There was provided for this Police District a 
Board of Commissioners of Police, consisting of the Mayors of 
Washington and Georgetown and five other members, three 
from Washington, one from Georgetown and one from the 
county, to be appointed by the President by and with the advice 
and consent of the Senate; which Board was vested with the 
police powers to be exercised throughout the District: including 
the preservation of the peace, the prevention of crime and ar- 
resPof offenders, the protection of rights of person and property 
and the public health, and the enforcement of the laws gener¬ 
ally applicable to matters of police. A police force was estab¬ 
lished, possessing in every part of the District the common-law 
and statutory police powers of constables, and provision was 
made for the division of the District into police precincts, with 
convenient station houses, for the more efficient administration 
of the police power, and a superintendent was created to act as 
“the head and chief” of the force, subject to the orders and 
regulations of the Board. The several municipalities were 
stripped of the police power as such, and the existing constabu¬ 
laries were abolished. The initial act was several times 
amended and supplemented, but in the main the police system 
as originally devised^remains to this day. 

This was, in the beginning, not a popular departure from the 
old system, but its wisdom was soon abundantly manifested; 
and it is, perhaps, not too much to say that a more necessary, 
and, in the result, a more justifiable step was never taken; for 
the possibilities of the situation, had the old system been left in 
operation, are difficult, if not impossible, of exaggeration. 

The establishment of the Metropolitan Police District bore. 



212 


DAVIS 


within less than a decade, fruit not looked for at the planting. 
For by act of February 21, 1871 (16 Stats. 419), Congress 
created the whole of the District “into a government by the 
name of the District of Columbia.” The Corporations of 
Washington and Georgetown and the Levy Court, and all the 
offices appertaining thereto, were abolished at the date of June 
I, 1871, although all the ordinances and laws of the two cor¬ 
porations and the Levy Court, not inconsistent with the act, 
were continued in force in their respective territories, until mod- 
fied and repealed by Congress or the Legislative Assembly 
created by the act; and the powers of the Levy Court were 
continued for certain purposes. The new corporation, the Dis¬ 
trict of Columbia, was made successor to the municipal bodies 
which were abolished, and vested with all the property of those 
bodies. The Government of the District was vested in a Gov¬ 
ernor, a Secretary and a Council of eleven, two from George¬ 
town, two from the county and the rest from Washington, all to 
be appointed by the President by and with the advice and con¬ 
sent of the Senate; and a House of Delegates, twenty-two in 
number, to be elected by the people. The Governor and the 
Secretary were to hold office four years, the members of the 
Council two years and the Delegates one year. The first Coun¬ 
cil was to be divided into a one year class of five and a two 
year class of six, and afterwards all were to be appointed for 
two years. It is interesting to note, as in the case of the latest 
legislation respecting the constitution of the Levy Court, the 
persistence of this principle, first applied in the case of the 
United States Senate. 

Besides these general municipal officials, the act provided a 
Board of Health and a Board of Public Works and gave the 
District the only direct representation which it has ever had in 
Congress, in the person of a delegate to the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives to have the same rights and privileges as delegates 
from the Territories, and, besides, to be a member of the com¬ 
mittee on the District of Columbia. The Board of Public 
Works was provided to consist of the Governor and four citizens 
and residents of the District to be appointed by the President 
and Senate for four years, of whom one was to be from 


DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 


213 


Georgetown, one from the County, and one a civil engineer. 
This Board was given entire control of, and authorized to make 
all regulations which it should deem necessary for keeping in 
repair the streets, avenues, alleys and sewers of the City (its 
powers were extended to the County by the Legislative As¬ 
sembly), and all other works which might be entrusted to it by 
the Legislative Assembly or Congress. The principle of divis¬ 
ion of expense between the United States and the District was 
again recognized here, as in the further provision of the act that 
all officers to be appointed by the President were to be paid by 
the United States and all others to be paid by the District for 
their services. 

An interesting provision of the scheme, though one that was 
never acted upon, indicates the extent to which the principle of 
local government in local affairs still held sway; for it was pro¬ 
vided by the act that the Legislative Assembly might divide the 
portion of the District outside of the cities into townships, not 
exceeding three, and create township officers and prescribe their 
duties, but that all township officers should be elected by the 
people of the townships respectively. 

The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in the case 
of Roach V. Van Riswick (MacA. & M., 171, decided No¬ 
vember 18, 1897), held that much of this act, so far as it con¬ 
cerned the Legislative Assembly, was unconstitutional and 
void, for the reason that ^Congress had no power to delegate 
general legislative authority to the local government of the Dis¬ 
trict, but could give that government only such powers as 
might properly be conferred upon a municipal corporation; a 
decision which may yet be brought under review, to somebody’s 
disaster, as I think : for it seems to me clearly wrong, seeing 
that the Constitution only gave Congress the potential right of 
jurisdiction over the District, and that it was Maryland, the 
sovereign of the territory, that “ceded and relinquished” that 
territory,—not delegated any powers—“ to the Congress and 
government of the United States, in full and absolute right, 
and exclusive jurisdiction, as well of soil as of persons residing 
or to reside thereon.” This is not delegation : it is absolute ces¬ 
sion of territory and abdication of all rights therein, and the sue- 


214 


DAVIS 


cessor to territory and all rights therein is surely under no 
hamper of delegated authority. 

The fate of the territorial government, as it is generally called, 
is too freshly in mind to call for extended comment; and it suf¬ 
fices to say that between the riot of extravagance of the Board 
of Public Works and the orgy of suffrage, which some of our 
good citizens long to have restored, that government, after a 
fevered life of a little more than three years, deservedly fell. 
And its fall ushered in what I hope is to be the last stage of the 
District’s political development. 

When Congress could no longer endure its creature of 1871, 
it enacted on June 20, 1874 Stats. 116), that all provisions 
for an Executive, Secretary, Legislative Assembly, Board of 
Public Works and Delegate to Congress from the District should 
be repealed (saving the term of office of the then sitting dele¬ 
gate), and that for the time being, and until otherwise provided 
by law, the government of the District should be committed to a 
board of three commissioners to be appointed by the President 
and Senate and vested with all the powers formerly belonging to 
the Governor and Board of Public Works, except as otherwise 
provided by the act; and that the powers of the Chief Engineer 
of that Board should be exercised by an officer of the Engineer 
Corps of the Army of the United States, to be detailed by the 
President. In addition, a Board of Audit, consisting of the First 
and Second Comptrollers of the Treasury was provided, with the 
authority and duty to audit all claims growing out of the acts of 
the Board of Public Works in the execution of its “ comprehen¬ 
sive plan of improvements,” the cost of which the District is yet 
paying and to pay through the medium of the familiar and 
much-to-be-desired 3.65 bonds. 

After a four years’ trial of this form of government for the 
District, Congress very wisely decided to make it, with certain 
improvements, permanent, and on June ii, 1878 (20 Stats. 102), 
passed the act under which, as amended and supplemented from 
time to time, we now live. The Government of the District 
under this legislation which at the outset I made bold enough to 
speak of as the best possible for a municipality may be gener¬ 
ally described as follows: 



DE\'’ELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 21 ^ 

The powers and authority of government are lodged in a 
board of three Commissioners, two of whom are civilians, 
citizens of the United States and actual residents of the District 
of Columbia for three years before their appointment and having, 
during that period, claimed residence nowhere else. These 
two Commissioners are appointed for three years by the Presi¬ 
dent and Senate, and the third is an officer of the Corps of 
Engineers of the United States Army whose lineal rank is above 
that of captain, although the President may, in his discretion, 
detail for this duty a Captain of fifteen years’ service. This 
board of Commissioners has all the powers and authority for¬ 
merly belonging to the Governor and Board of Public Works 
of the District, and is, besides, vested with the powers and 
authority formerly belonging to the Boards of Police, Health 
and Public Schools. It has the power of appointment and re¬ 
moval of all the officers provided for the administration of the 
municipal affairs, may abolish any office, and may consolidate 
any two or more offices. Within the limitations of law on 
the subject, it fixes the rate of taxation, which, however, is 
applied to assessments of value made by a board of assessors 
of its own appointing, which latter board acts also as an Excise 
board for the granting and regulating of liquor licenses. 
Besides its more purely executive powers, into the details of 
which it is unnecessary to go, the Board of Commissioners has 
large powers of a legislative nature : as the powers to make and 
enforce building and coal regulations (20 Stats. 131), police 
regulations (24 Stats. ,368 ; 27 Stats. 394)» elevator regulations 
(24 Stats. 580), regulations for public safety on bridges (27 
Stats. 544), and in theatres (27 Stats. 394), regulations for the 
location and depth of gas-mains (27 Stats. 544), plumbing reg¬ 
ulations (27 Stats. 21), regulations relative to medical and den¬ 
tal colleges (29 Stats. 112), and regulations for the occupation 
of sidewalks and street parkings (30th Stats. 570) and the plat¬ 
ting of subdivisions of land (25 Stats. 451). It has also the 
power to order the erection of fire-escapes (24 Stats. 365), to 
order work in the nature of special improvements at the cost, in 
part, of the adjoining property owners (26 Stats. 296, 1066; 28 
Stats. 247), and to condemn lands for sites for school, fire and 



2i6 


DAVIS 


police buildings, and rights of way for sewers (26 Stats. 302) ; 
to constitute or appoint to various boards and institutions : as, to 
fill vacancies in the board of trustees of Columbia Hospital (27 
Stats. 551), to appoint Dental Examiners (27 Stats. 42), and a 
Board of Medical Supervisors and boards of Medical Examiners 
(29 Stats. 198), to appoint trustees of the Free Public Library 
and Reading Room (29 Stats. 244), and trustees for the Indus¬ 
trial Home School (29 Stats. 410), and to appoint a board for 
the licensing of plumbers and gas-fitters (27 Stats. 21 ; 30 Stats. 
477)‘ It also has the power to grant pardons for offenses 
against the laws of Washington, Georgetown, the Levy Court 
and the Legislative Assembly and against the Police and Build¬ 
ing Regulations (27 Stats. 22). That a body of three American 
citizens, mixed civil and military, vested with so numerous, 
varied and large powers exercises them with so little irritation 
and so little just cause of complaint is surely a high tribute to 
the American character, just now so much in evidence through¬ 
out the world, and just now taking on so many new respon¬ 
sibilities, to which, it goes without saying, it will prove fully 
adequate. 

One of the most interesting features of our local government 
needs yet to be noticed, the feature of its cost. The Commis¬ 
sioners annually submit to the Secretary of the Treasury esti¬ 
mates of the expenses of the government of the District for the 
fiscal year beginning the first day of July following. The Sec¬ 
retary of the Treasury passes upon these estimates and sends to 
the Commissioners a statement of the amount approved by him, 
and this statement and their own original estimates the Com¬ 
missioners transmit to Congress; and to the extent to which 
Congress approves of the estimates it appropriates one-half, and 
the remaining half is levied upon the taxable property and 
privileges in the District other than the property of the United 
States and the District of Columbia; but the rate of taxation in 
any one year cannot exceed one dollar and fifty cents on every 
hundred dollars of real property and personal property not tax¬ 
able elsewhere, or one dollar on the hundred for agricultural 
property. 



DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 217 

What I wish especially to be noticed in this connection is the 
oft-mentioned division of expense between the United States and 
the District. As we have seen, Congress took notice of this 
principle in the act of 1820 relating to the Corporation of Wash¬ 
ington, and in its act of 1848 on the same subject gave the prin¬ 
ciple more specific and extended application. In short, the 
principle may be said to have existed from the first: and with 
good reason, seeing that the District was established primarily 
for the purposes of the National government and that that gov¬ 
ernment is the owner of quite half of all the property here jvith 
which governmental agencies as the fruit of taxation are con¬ 
cerned, as in protection against fire and theft, water supply, 
&c. Moreover; the National government always bore its due 
share of the cost of street improvements, &c., adjoining its 
properties and for long bore exclusively the cost of the fire ser¬ 
vice and almost exclusively the cost of the water service in the 
District. All in all, if either party to the double government of 
the District ought to be favored in the matter of expense it is 
the local and not the National government. 

I have expressed the hope that this latest phase of our polit¬ 
ical development will be its last. If not this, it seems destined 
to be the last for some time to come, in view of the light in 
which it is regarded by the Supreme Court of the United States. 
In Eckloff V. District of Columbia (135 U. S. 240, 243-4), that 
Court, speaking of the act of 1878 says: 

The court below placed its decision on what we conceive to 
be the true significance of the act of 1878. As said by that 
court, it is to be regarded as an organic act, intended to dispose 
of the whole question of a government for this District. It is, 
as it were, a constitution for the District. It is declared by its 
title to be an act to provide “ a permanent form of government 
for the District.” The word permanent is suggestive. It im¬ 
plies that prior systems have been temporary and provisional. 
As permanent it is complete in itself. It is the system of gov¬ 
ernment. The powers which are conferred are organic powers. 
We look to the act itself for their extent and limitations. It is 
not one act in a series of legislation, and to be made to fit into 
the provisions of the prior legislation, but it is a single complete 
act, the outcome of previous experiments, and the final judgment 
of Congress as to the system of government which should ob- 




2i8 


DAVIS 


tain. It is the constitution of the District, and its grants of 
power are to be taken as new and independent grants, and ex¬ 
pressing in themselves both their extent and limitations. Such 
was the view taken by the court below: and such we believe is 
the true view to be taken of the statute. 

The last act in what may be termed the unification of the 
District was the passage by Congress of the law of February 
II, 1895 (28 Stats. 650), abolishing the city of Georgetown 
and its name, repealing all of its general laws, regulations and 
ordinances, and extending to it all general laws, regulations 
and ordinances of the city of Washington. And by an agency 
more effective than the most solemn statute, namely, the usage 
of the people, the further result has been accomplished that to 
all practical intents and purposes, and in the eyes of the nation 
at large, the entire District now passes by the name of the 
Father of our Country, originally given to our city, but which, 
like the illustrious character from whom it was taken, has drawn 
to itself its whole environment. 

And the political development of the District of Columbia 
suggests to me the plan of this beautiful city of ours, not built 
upon an uninviting plain and not laid out in exclusively right 
lines, but set in an environment of rare attractiveness; with 
its system of wide streets overlaid by intersecting avenues 
which break the otherwise mathematical stiffness of its thor¬ 
oughfares, and set with beautifying and refreshing parks un¬ 
rivaled by any intra-urban park system of the world. So 
with our political growth and development: beginning with 
the simple institution of the Levy Court, taking up as occasion 
required the forms of municipal government felt to be adapted 
to the situation from time to time, and finally taking the form of 
a wisely-conceived and skillfully-constructed scheme of local 
government, and yet all the while under the play of the essen¬ 
tially American distinction between the National and local 
systems. While on every hand we find statutory provisions, 
with their artificiality of conception and rigidness of expression, 
we yet meet at every point the freer action of those natural and 
more elastic elements of usage, tradition and fundamental prin¬ 
ciple which are at the bottom of all things English and out of 
which only all true law and political development spring and 


DEVELOPMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 


219 


grow. While we find everywhere minute regard for the local, 
as in the case of the Levy Court and the simple forms of 
municipal government of the cities, we are everywhere also 
brought face to face with the National, as in the original Com¬ 
missioners of the city, the Superintendent of the City, the Com¬ 
missioner of Public Buildings, the Chief of Engineers of the 
Army, the Metropolitan Police and the Board of Public Works. 
And, strangest of all, at the very heart of a nation grounded in 
the notion of “ government of the people, by the people and for 
the people,” we see from the beginning the almost aggressive 
expression of distrust of the popular vote, the absence of which 
has so often been remarked as the most striking feature of the 
government of the Capital. Thus always the Levy Court was 
in its personnel the creature of the President and Senate, while 
for long the Mayors of the cities were either the choice of the 
President or of the vote of the people only when filtered through 
the Aldermen and Councils. Anomalous enough this seems; 
but how much more anomalous is it that in the existing and best 
form of government of the District yet devised, local suffrage is 
wholly eliminated and that the only real guarantee of local 
participation in government is the residence qualification of the 
civilian Commissioners. Food for thought there surely is in 
this, and an irresistible suggestion to turn again and again to 
those words of President Monroe which I read to you in the 
outset. 

But who shall be heard to complain of any of this, when we 
look about and see the result as shown in our beautiful and or¬ 
derly city? beautiful in its topography, plan and embellishment, 
and orderly beyond all other cities; rich in wealth and richer 
still in intelligence: the very Mecca of the patriotism and intel¬ 
lect of the country; the site of the great public institutions of 
our land and the depository of its priceless archives and scientific 
and literary collections, which are at once the possession and the 
pride of the people of the whole nation ; in a word, truly the City 
of Washington : Washington, who has been aptly characterized 
as “ the greatest of good men and the best of great men,” and of 
whom the soundest of English historians, John Richard Green, 
has truly said that “ no nobler figure ever stood in the forefront 


220 


DAVIS 


of a nation’s life,” and that men learned to cling to him “ with 
a trust and faith such as few other men have won, and to regard 
him with a reverence which still hushes us in the presence of 
his memory.” To Patrick Henry in 1795 he spoke one dear 
wish of his heart in the memorable words, “ I want an Ameri¬ 
can character; ” and in his will, devising a portion of his prop¬ 
erty for the founding of a National University here, he ex¬ 
pressed his “ ardent wish to see a plan devised on a liberal 
scale, which would have a tendency to spread systematic ideas 
through all parts of this rising empire, thereby to do away with 
local attachments and State prejudices, as far as the nature of 
things would or indeed ought to admit, from our National 
Councils.” If you seek Washington’s true monument, look 
upon your ideal city, at once the training school of the Ameri¬ 
can character and the University of his dream. 


LBAp ’ll 







M 


\K 


tf 


^ \ 






■» f j 




VS' 


A’ 


a 




[fi, 


r»' 


t 




A 


h I 


♦ KfW'Ti 


(‘, h ? ' •A-’. 


fim 






V 


M 


r 




tr 


f » 


*) 




t/, V 




m?. 


.1' •• 




v’^Vi 






* ’ 

.-■•J ’> 






.i' 1) t 






\ 




•■w. 


3 


»»*1 


IrilJ r» 


W 




!fc< 


» . wt 




'« I 


ji 


'i: 


I. 


• •! 


I» ^ 


1^ « 






■» « 


b - • 




bl I 




^J' 


il,-. 

i] ^ 4 f * A 

»\ 'i T^. ^ jf ■ . , ••* 


,i 




■>4^ 




< >• 


»V 


* V 


'^f»^ 


■w' 


f 


Y: 


. 4 


•«» 






a» 


i* 1 




t- ▼» 


* 4 ' 

i/i-' 




_4 


.v» 


i'lL 




'V. 


hi 


» f 


I r 




<«<• 


nl 




A . ;-. 


»»-nI 


14 * ’ 5 


4 ( 


ft 


-r. 


U 




.ii 


t * 


<4 


1 1 a 




a 


ur 




I t V 


% 


iVp 


• >< 


- f 




t t 


•J 


f 


>. c 


r I 

k.^. , 




^ . /w 


) i 




/ : 


• n 




u\ 




•A ^ 




ifi 




S 




7 ] 





















